Posted
by
timothy
on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @09:41AM
from the all-a-mpaa-front-anyhow dept.

twoheadedboy writes "Kim Dotcom launched his new project Mega on Sunday, claiming it was to be 'the privacy company.' But it might not be so private after all, as security professionals have ripped it to shreds. There are numerous problems with how encryption is handled, an XSS flaw and users can't change their passwords, they say. But there are suspicions Mega is handing out encryption keys to users and touting strong security to cover its own back. After all, if Kim Dotcom and Co don't know what goes on the site, they might not be liable for copyright prosecutions, as they were for Megaupload, Mega's preprocessor." On this front, reader mask.of.sanity points out a tool in development called MegaCracker that could reveal passwords as users sign up for the site.

While the concepts behind Mega were a huge improvement over similar sites, I still don't see the relevance of what is basically a tarted-up Napster-style file sharing site in the age of torrents (running over darknets, too).

The so called leader of the free hosting market for the masses, dropbox, offers only 2GB of storage and has a notorious problem with security issues. As a comparisson, Kim Dotcom's Mega service offers 50GB, and at least tries to add security from the start instead of relying on smoke-screen press releases, as happened with Dropbox.

So, it's very relevant if you wish to safely store your files in a third-party server.

What? No, it is not. The *IAA have the FBI do their dirty work. Breaking encryption might require a warrant, if you're lucky. But the basic problem with something like Mega is that in order to be successful with those sharing copyrighted media, people have to know how to get the files they are looking for. Someone has to index the files stored on Mega. For each tracker, download each file check the contest with the key provided, then submit the dcma request.

This is the only post that seems to get it. Per the DMCA, breaking encryption - of ANY strength - is against the law. MPAA and RIAA can not crack the files and then use them as evidence. Neither can law enforcement (without a warrant / probable cause). If they do, it won't be allowed as evidence in court (unclean hands).

I am sad/shocked/disappointed that Slashdot can't see the genius this. Like the parent said, it doesn't have to be "good" encryption. It just has to be encryption. ROT13 wou

How about because most laws punish people for uploading, NOT for downloading. So downloading through sites like Mega is a lot safer, especially if it's all encrypted. Besides, there is certain stuff I could never find on torrent sites, but I could get people to upload it to sites like Mega.

This is waht it looks like. The same thing has never been said about rapidshare, uploaded, bitshare, dropbox or sugarsync, and Mega hasn't realy been out yet, has already about a million registered users, and it already is the target of a disinformation campaign that no other service has been subjected to date.

It does smell fishy and it looks like Kim DotCom does scare some people.

I don't know about that. I mean, it's not inconceivable, not even close, but when you look at the aforementioned "masked password" problem (leaving out confirmation of a password you can't see begs for applied cluebat therapy) and the fact that even a "clean" (no add-ons or extensions) Firefox 18.0.1 won't even load the page for me, because of that stupid "The Operation is Insecure" LocalStorage error...

I always wondered why people would even consider trusting this guy with anything. I mean regardless of whether he is guilty of the current charges against him, he's already been convicted for fraud, data theft, insider trading, and embezzlement in the past.

We'll see how the situation plays out, but you'd have to be pretty naive to be surprised if a two time convicted criminal ended up doing something illegal in his current venture...

You can encypher your data before uploading on *any* site. At that point they are all equally secure. Kim's claim was that Mega was more secure by design.

However, the claim is completely broken. Mega is using a public/private key pair - generated by the web site - and so their servers actually *do* know both your keys, and *can* decrypt your data. So, basically, it is no more secure than dropbox.

Huh that's significant. In the early planning stages I remember his plan was that only the user would know the encryption key, and apart from the security aspects of that, it would shield Mega from liability since they would then be incapable of even knowing what was uploaded. Both of those are untrue then.

This master key is stored on MEGA's servers, encrypted with a hash derived from the user's login password.... In addition to the symmetric key, each user account has a 2048 bit RSA key pair to securely receive data. Its private component is stored encrypted with the user's symmetric master key.

According to that, the keys are stored on the server, but it's encrypted with a hash of your password... I understand that all they would have to do is store the generated key somewhere and have full access to all your files if they wanted. I'm not debating that.

The part I'm trying to figure out is:

The cryptographic integrity of MEGA's user data is important to us. We can therefore not allow you to distribute or make available your client application without going through us. We will perform a code audit of your product and promote/distribute it on our site.

So they want full access to the source of your client "to ensure the integrity of MEGA's user data" but for some reason I keep reading that as though they know the properly coded application could damage their site.

But that's the point. If they can in theory, then the site is not secure.

If they can in theory, then they can be forced to do so by a court order. Capture your password the next time you log in, decrypt your keys, then decrypt your files. If the courts can compel Mega to deliver unencrypted files as evidence, then the site is useless.

However, the claim is completely broken. Mega is using a public/private key pair - generated by the web site - and so their servers actually *do* know both your keys, and *can* decrypt your data. So, basically, it is no more secure than dropbox.

Wrong. It is generated on the client side. Just because the web site generates it, doesnt mean the server has to know about it.

You are right about Mega being able to find the keys though. If they want to target you, they could modify the JS only for you and make the keys available to them. If you dont expect to be targetted for new uploads, it is indeed better than dropbox.

You can encypher your data before uploading on *any* site. At that point they are all equally secure. Kim's claim was that Mega was more secure by design.

However, the claim is completely broken. Mega is using a public/private key pair - generated by the web site - and so their servers actually *do* know both your keys, and *can* decrypt your data. So, basically, it is no more secure than dropbox.

The private key is generated on your computer and not the website. They don't have a copy of the private key.

Nevermind where the keys are generated. Obviously all of the pertinent keys are stored server-side. How else can you move to a new computer and still access all of your data with just your Mega login and password? Basically your password is the key. And the password security is abysmal. During signup, the confirmation link that they send you contains a hash of your login password, among other things. There is a password cracker program freely available that will recover your password from this hash va

You can encypher your data before uploading on *any* site. At that point they are all equally secure. Kim's claim was that Mega was more secure by design.

However, the claim is completely broken. Mega is using a public/private key pair - generated by the web site - and so their servers actually *do* know both your keys, and *can* decrypt your data. So, basically, it is no more secure than dropbox.

Hahaha. Honestly, you could have at least read the developer's docs. I doubt you'd understand it, but you could have at least try reading it.

Not true. Have you actually checked the code, or do you just repeat the nonsense mentioned on many sites?

I haven't done a thorough analysis of the code / traffic so far, but from what I've seen so far the key is generated on the client-side using this Javascript, namely SJCL (Stanford Javascript Crypto Library). For example this is the keygen: https://eu.static.mega.co.nz/keygen_0.js [mega.co.nz], this is the RSA implementation https://eu.static.mega.co.nz/rsa_0.js [mega.co.nz] and so on. Once the key is generated on client, the pri

Indeed. It has always astounded me that people upload files with the full name of the movie/software, and often as.avi, not even zipped, let alone encrypted. Then they complain about the service changing its policies or shutting down, after it came under scrutiny, when it's more or less their own fault. Very weird.

The SSL encryption being used on Mega appears to be 1024-bit encryption, which can be broken with far greater ease than 2048-bit encryption viewed as best-practice amongst experts.

Isn't this kind of nitpicking? Isn't the solution to this like changing a value in your configuration or properties files on both sides and watching performance drop a bit? I guess when you have that many users sign up at the drop of a hat, you're expected to have unblemished perfection available for all. But I don't really see this "riddled with security holes." Instead I'd say "needs improvement before you trust it with anything important." As a software developer, I'm prone to give people a break but I guess if your site isn't prepared to be hosted at DEFCON you're fodder.

I mean, some of these points are valid like I have no idea why you would choose to do this in JavaScript but I guess if you want it to run entirely contained within the browser you don't have much choice unless you start to get into platform specific things like nacl.

Sort of offtopic but why are we following this so closely? I mean, I understand he's challenging world governments by doing this again but do we have to watch every little step and misstep of Kim Dotcom? He's starting to rub me the wrong way as a sort of attention whore. The longer his fifteen minutes of fame last the bigger embarrassment he's going to have in the 24 hour news cycle's circle of hate. Ugh, and his name is something straight out of Idiocracy... did he try to change his first name to "The Bomb" but was blocked by the TSA?:-)

For the longest time I thought Kim Dotcom was a woman. I mused that perhaps she is an ex-pornstar? So I wasn't surprised or bothered by the blatant attention whoring. Then I saw his picture and... I remain deeply troubled.

btw. has anyone an idea how/where he "legally" changed his name? most german sources still refer to him as "kim schmitz", and i have found nothing which states if he changed his name in germany or finland (as it seems he has both citizenships).. the german wikipedia entry only refers to the name saying "In Neuseeland tritt Schmitz unter dem Namen Kim Dotcom auf" - does this mean he simply used a wrong name when entering NZ, or did he change his name in NZ, but not in finland/germany?

To add to that: in Germany changing your name, especially your lastname, is generally not possible: "Im derzeit geltenden Namensrecht gilt der Grundsatz der Unabänderlichkeit des Namens." There are exceptions to that law, but I doubt that Schmitz applies for any of them.

But if the guy is already a celebrity, isn't attention-whoring part of his job description?

In a related topic, it's been something of an industry rumor for the past six months that Dice has made a confidential offer to an ex-member of the band, Guns-n-Roses, to change his last name to "dot org".

Because *everyone* loves a good reality show or celebrity meltdown. We all love to live vicariously, but different people chose different targets.

Thus, the Slashdot Demographic follows Dotcom, McAfee, etc... the way the rest of the world follows the Kardashian's, or Paris Hilton, or Lance Armstrong, or whatever their personal flavor of the month is.

I don't know about that (though it could just be my gag reflex talking).

I follow this because I'm interested in the service and would like to see it actually survive, and also because it feels a lot like the plot to Cryptonomicon in real-life, minus constantly talking about how awesome one time pads are. The fact that Dotcom's name is attached to it is coincidental, at least, for me.

Oh, another difference: Psychotic lawyers are yet to appear in the real life version, though there has been some heavy

No, because it is promoted as a secure site that protects the users privacy. If we promoted as a place where users could get 50GB free space and there was an effort using various means to provide some insurance that user data was protected that would be different. One thing we have learned is that free data storage is seldom secure.

The point of the story is to shore up the idea that many of us have had. That the encryption is not intended to to one's data secure, or to insure privacy, but to provide a means by a arms length relationship between Mega and the data that user upload. This may force any future legal battles to be between right holders and individual uploader, not right holders and mega. If you wonder what the benefit of that is to Mega and uploader, just think of how corporations hate class action lawsuits.

But the damage occurs if users believe that the site is secure and private, so upload valuable information that Mega could later, through a change in the terms of use, mine or sell. Or some may use the site as the primary depository of data, then lose access to the data through the muddled security.

This is an interesting topic because many believe security is easy. That I can put 100 combination locks on a door and make it 100 time more secure. That I can advertise a product 'uses 4096 Bozo military grade encryption', plug a product that uses this encryption into the software, and automagically have a more secure product that uses 1024 bozo encryption.

All security is relative. The following attack vectors exist - they are not specific to MEGA, but we want you to know about the risks:Individual accounts are jeopardized by:- Spyware on your computer. A simple keylogger is enough, but session credentials and keys could also be extracted from memory or the filesystem.- Shoulder surfing. Do not type your password while someone could watch your keystrokes.- Password brute-forcing. Use strong passwords.- Phishing. Always confirm the security status of your connection (https://) and the correct domain name (mega.co.nz) before entering your password.

Large-scale attacks could be mounted through:- A "man in the middle" attack. Requires issuing a valid duplicate SSL certificate in combination with DNS forging and/or attacks on our BGP routes (a DigiNotar-style scenario).- Gaining access to the webservers hosting https://mega.co.nz/index.html [mega.co.nz] and replacing that file with a forged version (this would not affect access through the installed app base). Note that manipulating content on our distributed static content CDN does not pose a security risk, as all active content loaded from index.html is subject to verification with a cryptographic hash (think of it as some kind of "secure boot" for websites). This type of attack requires sending malicious code to the client and is therefore detectable.- Gaining access to our core server infrastructure and creating forged key requests on existing shares. This type of attack only affects data in shared folders and is detectable on the client side as well.

What if I don't trust you? Is it still safe for me to use MEGA?

If you don't trust us, you cannot run any code provided by us, so opening our site in your browser and entering your password is off limits. If you still want to use MEGA, you have to do so through a client app that was written by someone you trust.

Doesn't that look pretty reasonable? What more do you want them to do? They created a pretty impressive webclient-driven easy-to-use file locker system, and they clearly spell out the problems with that approach.

Many of the article's points are pretty moot, btw. It does not use JS random function, they have extra verification for the 1024 bit SSL encrypted data, and the deduplication only works for shared files ("copy to my locker" functionality is mentioned - same data, same key, same place on the storage servers).

The part about mega.co.nz being able to send malicious code stealing your password is explicitly mentioned in their FAQ, and in a better way too. They even cover other attack vectors the article didn't.

They made a decent system, and they're upfront and honest about it's limitations. The article is at best FUD.

I agree with your main point(s) about how "riddled with security holes" is an overdramatization. But about the following:

Sort of offtopic but why are we following this so closely? I mean, I understand he's challenging world governments by doing this again but do we have to watch every little step and misstep of Kim Dotcom? He's starting to rub me the wrong way as a sort of attention whore.

... you sort of lose me in this part. You start off wondering why people are paying attention, and that's a fine/deba

With the court case still going on, obviously several parties are highly motivated to attack KDC publicly in any way possible in order to taint all possible juries into having a negative image of KDC and to side ruling against him, whether in a criminal or more importantly a civil court. The US government is up for hundreds of millions of dollars in a blatantly corrupt prosecution, where a Vice President drove the case at the behest of industry lobbyists in order to garner support for an upcoming US electi

Sort of offtopic but why are we following this so closely? I mean, I understand he's challenging world governments by doing this again but do we have to watch every little step and misstep of Kim Dotcom?

Can't speak for others, but for me personally, my reason is quite simple.

Speaking of picking nits, isn't using javascript's random function to generate the key kind of nit picky also? First and foremost, they do gather entropy from user interaction (mouse movements and key presses). Ok, in theory if a user uses the minimum path, keyboard only navigation you could possibly, maybe figure things out. Except even thing, generating the key is a one time thing. Unless you're literally on the run from the NSA when you sign up for the service I just don't see it as that big of deal (

Lemme see, SSL part. Well, main site use 2048 bits, and the JS on that page loads and verifies all other resources. And file upload / downloads are already encrypted before SSL even touches them. So that point is completely moot.

And the "Mega server could send bad code" is already covered in Mega's own FAQ - well,duh. I doubt it comes as a shock to anyone.

As for the deduplication, I don't know. But there are ways to do that (like using file content hash as en

"Deduplication is done based on the entire encrypted file and only happens if you either upload the same file encrypted with the same key twice (unlikely) or if you copy or import an existing file in your file manager (more likely)."

"Security folk have also flagged problems with the fact that Mega uses a web browser to send encryption information, opening avenues for attackers to intercept keys by breaking SSL or by commandeering Mega's servers, some of which are said to be located in the United States."

Err, hang on.. I could swear I read a while ago that the whole point of all this was to have servers that are OUTSIDE of US ?

While it seems likely that Mega's encryption is not exactly the creme de la creme of crypto implementations, I have also read some pretty dubious assessments of its cryptography, for example the review at Ars Technica which spreads more FUD than facts. Or take the claim in one of the above articles claims that the FBI is probably already typing their search warrants, which ignores the fact that this time not a single server is located within the US.

I wrote a comment [slashdot.org] about the crypto system yesterday, from a outsider amateur's point of view. Nothing in that article was even surprising.

It's actually pretty cool, they do point out more or less the exact things in their FAQ [mega.co.nz], which is surprisingly honest for such a site. Most would try to handwave it away or just outright ignore it.

As extra info to that comment I wrote earlier, I confirmed that they save a version of the RSA key on their server, and during login a blob of data is sent in (login user in cle

Update : Regarding the random source, this [mega.co.nz] is the code they use, and it's from this project [google.com]. It use mouse and keyboard events (not all, math.random is used to decide which ones), with rc4 as mixing function.

Weird. Chrome here, and it works fine. Of course, I'm not on Rogers, the ISP that packet inspects your traffic, to perform the "service" of telling you your computer is infected with malware before they ever get any complaints....

Seriously, I just spent a bunch of time playing with Tahoe-LAFS. And while it's a bit tricky to get running, it's a far better service in terms of security than MEGA is. The only thing it's missing is a front-end that allows it to use random cloud storage providers for its storage. And that's being written as we speak.

Who cares if you can intercept the private encryption key (not often you get to say that) - seriously, noone with a brain is going to be uploading sensitive data to Mega and expecting them to take care of it. There are no multinationals sitting in the wings waiting to outsource storage of their customer's credit card numbers to Mega. This is just supposed to be Megaupload minus the ability for the recording industry to demand all copies of the same file get deleted and minus the ability for the FBI to be able to ask Mega a question and get an answer about what's stored.

Yup, it doesn't matter that the encryption is flawed. What is not flawed is that the same file, uploaded by different people, will result in a different sequence of bits. Therefore, there is no easy way for the **AA or any *** to compare files on the site with other files and come up with a list of 'infinging' files. The purpose of the encryption is really just scrambling and for that it is probably good enough.

One, if what the idiot co-founder said in the update is true, Mega can decrypt your data. Which means their deniability just died and they will be on the hook, which means they are very likely to give your data to law enforcement in order to get out of everything.

Two, a fantastic and fairly neutral german article [heise.de] outlines the impact on the markets and musings on some more philosophical backgrounds. The TL;DR version is that Kim is pretty much the same as the banksters we want to see in jail

FTA:"If they had bothered to read that they would have seen that we basically state exactly what they are accusing us of as possible attack vectors plus some others they are not accusing us of," said Ortmann. "All of these SSL-related attacks do no apply specifically to us. They apply to companies with equally high security requirements or even higher requirements."

I was shocked to learn how much money this guy made the first time around...I suppose he hasn't learned his lesson.

Did the person who wrote the second half of that sentence, ever read the first part? Because the first part of your sentence says exactly what the lesson was, and Dotcom trying again is evidence that he did learn it.

I'm not sure which 'first time around' you're referring to here... The pump-and-dump ponzi scheme he ran during the late nineties dot-com bubble or the MegaUpload website he ran in the later oughts? Both operations paid him handsomely, and he so far only did a short stint in jail on the stock fraud, but the case is pending against him on the MegaUpload website. He's got more money than OJ Simpson did when he hired his legal 'dream team', so there's a chance he might avoid prosecution for MegaUpload.

I don't think so, after all this person has the hacker community against him. He cratered his reputation so many times. He did wrong and he deserves to get jailed. He is not only a suspected criminal but an annoyance, a shame for his nation.

Don't get me wrong here, I think Kim is a criminal and deserves to spend time behind bars.

He probably expects he will spend some more time in prison, and he's launching this service quickly while he still has his illicit capital from MegaUpload and before he has to go to prison for running it. While he's in prison, the new Mega service will become lucrative and he'll still be rich when he gets out of prison.

Unless he gets extradited to the US which given how NZers and the world responded to how the US went about this including using foreign intelligence agencies to prosecute a civil court matter... I really dont think it's gonna happen.

Best way to avoid prosecution on some matter is to stay out of the reach of those who want you. Particularly if those crimes are minor or non-existant in the eyes of the public. Many people who arent of the MAFIAA persuasion believe he's the victim and that is hard to overcome e

This does seem to be nit picking. The only real issue here is the XSS attack which as long as they fix quickly, isn't too bad. Compared to most sites I've seen this is a damned fort.

All data is encrypted before being uploaded so the SSL encryption is only needed to protect user login. I've just checked and it appears to be using 2048-bit encryption (for login at least) so it's either been fixed or wasn't an issue in the first place.

Mega could allow people to change passwords by decrypting the data with thei

The community seems quite interested in using his services and seeing that he beat his legal case. I think it is reasonable that the community help Kim DotCom out on this. He's trying to protect your data as much as his ass, which is more than a lot of companies do.

Instead of bitching and moaning about what's wrong, we should help him fix it. Give Kim security, consider it a mutual internet fuck you to those that deserve it.

Read the update on the article as well. The guys are entirely clueless about security and encryption.

TFA is correct. This isn't a few minor issues. The main feature of the service is broken, and if what they say in the update is true and not just clueless, then law enforcement can and will get at your data, too.

Because the other side isnt constantly moving to goal posts? IMHO any work that doesnt fall back into the public domain as the law was written when the work was created is FRAUD. Save your righteousness for people who deserve it.

Sure, because a mere fact that someone was raided by FBI is a proof that he's a criminal. And let's trust some unnamed Commentary who claims that the raided person is linked to a certain (yet unnamed) branches of Mafia. Not to be prudent, but many former US presidents were accused of Mafia links and relations too.